We’re here around the clock to help you take the first step toward resolving your legal issue. Reach out anytime for a free initial consultation.
Let us know a convenient time and we’ll get in touch—no waiting on hold.
The Courts and Tribunals Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 27 October 2026 and goes into committee from 10 November. The question underneath it is an old one: who gets a jury? Most people assume that anyone accused of a serious crime in England and Wales is tried by twelve members of the public, and that a jury trial is the norm in criminal cases. Most are not. The vast majority of criminal cases are decided in the magistrates' court, without a jury, and only a minority of criminal trials ever reach the Crown Court. Jury trials are reserved, in practice, for serious cases: every indictable offence, and those either way offences that the magistrates' court sends up or the defendant elects to have heard by a jury.
For one group of offences, the ones the law calls either way, the accused person currently has a choice. Even where the magistrates say they will keep the case, the defendant can insist on trial by jury in the Crown Court. That choice is what the Bill would remove. I have prosecuted and defended in both courts, and in my experience very few people facing an either-way allegation know the choice exists until the moment they are asked to make it.
This guide explains how trial by jury works in England and Wales today: which cases go before a jury, how the venue for an either-way offence is decided, how a jury reaches its verdict, and the trials that already take place without one. It then sets out, briefly, what the Bill would change, and why the decision that matters most would move earlier, to the point at which a suspect is charged and with what. For the Bill itself, clause by clause, see our guide to the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Trial by jury is the form of trial used in the Crown Court for the most serious criminal cases, in which a jury of twelve members of the public decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The judge decides questions of law, rules on what evidence the jury may hear, directs the jury on the law at the end of the case, and passes sentence if there is a conviction. The jury decides the facts, and the facts decide the verdict.
Jurors are not volunteers. Under section 1 of the Juries Act 1974, a person qualifies for jury service if they are registered as a parliamentary or local government elector, are aged 18 or over and under 76, have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man for at least five years since the age of 13, and are not disqualified. Potential jurors are chosen at random from the electoral register and sent a jury summons; jury service usually lasts around two weeks, and it can be deferred but rarely avoided. The jury for a particular trial is then selected in court by ballot from the panel of prospective jurors attending that day, and the twelve take their places in the jury box.
Two features of the jury matter to anyone facing trial. The first is that the people deciding the facts are not the people deciding the law. A jury does not hear evidence that the judge has ruled inadmissible; magistrates, by contrast, decide both questions and must put out of their minds anything they have excluded. The second is that a jury gives no reasons. The verdict is announced in court, and what was said in the jury room stays there: disclosing or soliciting a jury's deliberations is a criminal offence under section 20D of the Juries Act 1974, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment.
Trial by jury is one of the oldest features of the English legal system and of the common law jurisdictions that inherited it. Juries of local people were used in royal justice under Henry II in the twelfth century, and clause 39 of Magna Carta in 1215 promised that no free man would be imprisoned or punished except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. In Bushell's Case in 1670, the courts established that a jury cannot be punished for its verdict, which is the foundation of the jury's independence from the judge.
The jury system has nonetheless been narrowed many times. Civil jury trials, once routine, now survive only in a handful of High Court and county court claims, such as malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. In the criminal justice system, Parliament has repeatedly moved offences from the Crown Court to the magistrates' court. Practice across the justice system has varied greatly over the centuries, but one thing is constant. There is no general constitutional right to trial by jury in England and Wales: the right exists only where statute gives it, and the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a fair trial, not a jury.
Every criminal offence in England and Wales falls into one of three classes, and the class decides where the case can be tried.
| Class | Where it is tried | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Summary only | Magistrates' court only. No jury | Most driving offences, common assault, low-level public order offences |
| Either way | Magistrates' court or Crown Court | Theft, fraud, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, section 20 GBH, sexual assault, possession of indecent images |
| Indictable only | Crown Court only, before a jury | Murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, section 18 GBH with intent |
In the magistrates' court, criminal trials are decided either by a bench of two or three lay magistrates, who are trained volunteers advised on the law by a legal adviser, or by a district judge sitting alone. A trial before a district judge is, in substance, a trial by a judge without a jury, and it is already how a large share of criminal cases are decided.
An either-way offence is one that can be tried summarily, in the magistrates' court, or on indictment, in the Crown Court. Either way offences cover an enormous range of conduct, and the maximum penalty for them can vary greatly, from a theft of low value to a fraud running into millions, which is why the law leaves the venue open and decides it case by case.
Indictable only offences are always tried in the Crown Court, and the defendant has no choice to make. An indictable offence of that kind, such as murder or rape, carries the most serious maximum penalty, and every indictable only offence that is contested is tried before a jury. Summary offences are always tried in the magistrates' court, where a district judge or bench of magistrates decides them, with one exception: low-value shoplifting, where the goods are worth £200 or less, is treated as a summary offence, but an adult accused of it must still be given the opportunity to elect trial in the Crown Court (Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, s.22A).
For an adult charged with an either-way offence, the venue is decided at the first hearing in the magistrates' court, in a fixed sequence.
If the magistrates decide the case is more suitable for the Crown Court, there is no choice to make: it is sent there (s.21). The election only ever works in one direction, from the magistrates' court to a jury.
The magistrates' sentencing powers decide how many cases stay with them. For a single either-way offence, the general limit is currently 12 months' imprisonment (Sentencing Act 2020, s.224(1A)). A case is sent up only where the likely sentence would clearly exceed that, and even a case the magistrates keep can be committed to the Crown Court for sentence after conviction (Sentencing Code, s.14). There is also a value threshold for some offences. Criminal damage where the value involved does not exceed £5,000 is tried as if it were summary only, and the defendant has no right to elect (MCA 1980, s.22).
A jury is first directed to reach a unanimous verdict. If it cannot, the judge may give a majority direction, and under section 17 of the Juries Act 1974 the Crown Court can accept a verdict on which:
A majority verdict cannot be accepted unless the jury has had at least two hours to deliberate, and longer where the court thinks the nature and complexity of the case require it. On a majority guilty verdict, the foreman must state in open court how many agreed and how many dissented. A jury that cannot reach even a majority is discharged, and the prosecution decides whether to seek a retrial.
Every jury trial depends on jury service, and most people's only direct contact with the criminal justice system is a jury summons landing on the doormat. Jury service is how the Crown Court gets its jurors, so it is worth understanding how it works, both for anyone called to serve and for any defendant whose fate will be decided by the people who answer that summons.
Potential jurors are selected at random from the electoral register by the Jury Central Summoning Bureau. Anyone on the electoral register between the ages of 18 and 75 can receive a jury summons, and a jury summons is not an invitation: it is a legal requirement to attend. You must reply within seven days, either online or by post, confirming whether you can serve, or asking to defer or be excused. Failing to reply to a jury summons, or failing to attend jury service without good reason, is an offence under section 20 of the Juries Act 1974 and can lead to a fine of up to £1,000.
Jury service usually lasts ten working days, but jurors can be asked to serve for longer if a trial runs on, and some serious cases, particularly fraud trials, last months. Where a trial is expected to be long, potential jurors are asked in advance whether they can sit for that period.
Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974 sets out who is ineligible or disqualified from jury service. A person is disqualified for life if they have ever been sentenced to imprisonment for life, imprisonment for public protection, an extended sentence or a term of five years or more. A person is disqualified for ten years after serving any part of a custodial sentence, a suspended sentence or a community order, and for ten years after a conviction for one of the juror offences described below. A person who is on bail in criminal proceedings is disqualified for as long as the bail continues. Certain people lacking capacity, or detained under mental health legislation, are also ineligible. A person who serves on a jury knowing they are disqualified commits an offence.
A juror who cannot serve on the dates given can usually defer jury service once, to a date within the following 12 months. Excusal altogether is harder to obtain. The Jury Central Summoning Bureau will consider it where there is a good reason, such as serious illness, caring responsibilities that cannot be covered, or having served on a jury in the previous two years. Members of the armed forces can be excused where their commanding officer certifies that their absence would prejudice the efficiency of the service. Being busy at work is rarely enough on its own.
Jurors attending court form the jury panel, sometimes called the jury pool, for that day. When a trial is ready to start, the court clerk selects 15 or so names by ballot and takes them into the courtroom, and 12 are then called into the jury box one at a time. Each juror takes an oath or affirmation to try the defendant faithfully and give a true verdict according to the evidence. Once sworn, the jury members choose a foreperson, who will announce the verdict.
Before the trial begins, the jury is usually told the names of the defendant and the main witnesses, so that any juror who knows someone involved can say so. A juror with a connection to the case, or any other reason they cannot be impartial, is stood down and replaced from the panel.
The defence can challenge an individual juror for cause, which means giving a reason, such as a personal connection, why that juror cannot try the defendant fairly. The defence's right of peremptory challenge, to remove a juror without giving a reason, was abolished by section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The prosecution retains a limited power to ask a juror to stand by, used only in the circumstances set out in the Attorney General's guidelines. Unlike the United States, England and Wales does not question potential jurors at length before selection, and it has no system of alternate jurors: the 12 sworn jurors are the jury, and if one is discharged the trial continues with fewer, down to nine.
Jurors are not paid a wage for jury service. They can claim travel costs, a daily food and drink allowance and a capped allowance for loss of earnings, at the rates published on GOV.UK. Employers must allow an employee time off for jury service, though they are not obliged to pay them while they serve. Dismissing an employee because they have been summoned for, or attended, jury service is automatically unfair under section 98B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Jurors must decide the case on the evidence given in court and nothing else. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 inserted four specific offences into the Juries Act 1974, each punishable by up to two years in prison:
These offences matter to a defendant as much as to a juror. Research by a single juror can be grounds to discharge a jury, or to appeal a conviction, and it is one of the reasons judges now give such clear warnings to the jury at the start of every trial.
A jury's verdict cannot be questioned for its reasoning, because a jury gives none. That gives juries a power that judges and magistrates do not have: the power to acquit a defendant whom the law appears to condemn. In 1985, a jury acquitted the civil servant Clive Ponting of an offence under the Official Secrets Act, despite a direction from the judge that left little room for a not guilty verdict. In January 2022, a jury at Bristol Crown Court acquitted the four defendants charged with criminal damage over the toppling of the Edward Colston statue. Supporters of the jury system call this the jury's conscience; critics call it a jury ignoring the law. Either way, it is something no district judge sitting alone, and no judge-only trial, can do.
Trial by jury spread from England to most other common law jurisdictions, but the rules vary greatly from one country to the next. In the United States, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in criminal prosecutions, and the Supreme Court has held that such a right applies to any offence punishable by more than six months' imprisonment. Jury trials take place in both state and federal courts, and a defendant can usually waive a jury and opt for a bench trial before a judge alone. American courts commonly swear reserve jurors who sit through the trial in case a juror drops out, and jury size can vary greatly between states, with some using juries of six in less serious cases.
Closer to home, Scotland uses juries of 15 in serious cases, and Northern Ireland has for decades allowed certain cases to be tried by a judge alone, first in the so-called Diplock courts and now under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007. Many civil law jurisdictions have no jury at all, or use mixed panels of professional and lay judges. Other common law jurisdictions, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, keep jury trials for serious crimes but differ on majority verdicts, the number of jurors and when a defendant can elect a judge alone.
Juries are now rare outside criminal trials. In civil claims, section 69 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 gives a right to jury trial in the High Court only for claims involving fraud, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, unless the court orders otherwise; defamation lost its presumption of jury trial under the Defamation Act 2013. Coroners must sit with a jury of seven to eleven in certain inquests, including deaths in state detention where the death was violent or unnatural, and deaths following an act or omission of a police officer, under section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
There is no reliable answer that fits every case, and anyone who promises one is guessing. What can be said is that the two forums differ in ways that matter. In the Crown Court, the defendant is tried by twelve people with no stake in the case, the judge rules on the law and on admissibility in the jury's absence, and the maximum penalty available is the full statutory maximum. In the magistrates' court, the case is usually heard sooner, the sentencing powers are capped, and the same tribunal decides the law and the facts. The choice turns on the nature of the evidence, the likely sentence, the timetable and the cost, and it is a decision to take on advice, not by instinct.
A jury consists of twelve people who did not ask to be there, and that is the point. The jurors are the decision makers on the facts, and in serious cases their verdict decides whether a defendant leaves court free or goes to prison. For anyone facing criminal trials in the Crown Court, three practical consequences follow from how jury service works.
First, the jury will know nothing about the case except what it hears in court. Jurors are warned not to research the defendant, and doing so is a criminal offence, so the evidence admitted at trial, and the arguments about what should be excluded, matter enormously. Second, the jury is drawn from the electoral register of the area the Crown Court serves, which means the defence should think carefully about how evidence and witnesses will come across to a cross-section of the local public. Third, a jury trial takes longer to reach than a hearing in the magistrates' court, because the Crown Court backlog is now measured in years, and that delay is itself part of the decision about venue in either way offences.
None of this makes a jury better or worse in a particular case. It makes the preparation different. In my experience, defendants who understand how jury service and jury trials actually work make better decisions about venue, plea and evidence than those who rely on what they have seen on television.
Jury service is one of the few places where the public takes a direct part in the criminal justice system. Hundreds of thousands of people receive a jury summons each year, and most never serve on a long or high-profile trial. Their contribution matters well beyond any one case: the presence of a jury is part of what gives criminal law its public legitimacy, and it is why proposals to restrict jury trials provoke such strong reactions across the justice system. In the latter half of the twentieth century, Parliament moved many offences out of the Crown Court and into the magistrates' court; the Courts and Tribunals Bill would be the latest, and one of the largest, steps in that direction.
For practitioners, the rules of criminal procedure that govern jury trials, from the selection of jurors to the directions given in summing up, are part of everyday court proceedings. For the public, the simplest point is this: a summary offence is decided without a jury, an indictable only offence is decided with one if contested, and either way offences currently give the defendant the choice.
The Bill is often described as the end of an unbroken tradition. Trial without a jury in the Crown Court is not new, though it has been rare.
Jury tampering. Section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a Crown Court judge to order a trial without a jury where there is evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place, and where, notwithstanding any reasonable steps to prevent it, including police protection, the likelihood of tampering is so substantial that a judge-only trial is necessary in the interests of justice. The first trial ordered under it was the 2010 retrial of the men accused of the Heathrow warehouse robbery, after three earlier trials had collapsed.
Sample counts. Section 17 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 allows a judge, on the prosecution's application, to order that some counts on a very large indictment be tried by a jury as samples, and the remainder by the judge alone, where a jury trial of every count would be impracticable.
Long fraud trials, an earlier attempt. Parliament has tried to take juries out of complex fraud before. Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 would have allowed judge-only trial where the length or complexity of a fraud trial made it too burdensome for a jury. It was never brought into force, and it was repealed in 2012. The new judge-only provision in the Courts and Tribunals Bill revisits the same idea by a different route.
The Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 27 October and is listed for committee stage from 10 November, where it may be amended. As it left the Commons on 13 October, the provisions that bear on trial by jury are these:
The proposed Bench Division, which would have had a judge sit alone in a large share of Crown Court cases, was dropped before the Commons vote and is not in the Bill. We cover each of the clauses that remain, and the offences listed for judge-only trial, in our guide to the Courts and Tribunals Bill.
Taken together, the effect on trial by jury is straightforward to state. Today, an accused person facing an either-way allegation decides for themselves whether a jury hears it. Under the Bill, that decision would belong to the court, and the court would apply a sentencing threshold that ministers could raise.
There is a step that comes before all of this, and it is the one most people overlook. The venue follows the charge. Whether an allegation is charged as an indictable-only offence or as an either-way offence, and at what level, is a decision the prosecutor takes before anyone stands in front of a magistrate.
Some examples show how much turns on it. The same injury can be charged as wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which is indictable only and carries life, or as unlawful wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm under section 20, which is triable either way and carries five years. We explain how that choice is made in our guide to GBH under section 18 or section 20. An allegation of a sexual nature charged as sexual assault is triable either way; charged as assault by penetration, it is indictable only. A dishonesty allegation can be charged in more than one way, and the offence chosen decides whether, under the Bill, a judge-only trial is even possible.
Under the current rules, a person charged with an either-way offence keeps a safeguard: whatever the magistrates decide, they can choose a jury. If the right to elect is removed, that safeguard goes, and the decisions taken earlier, on whether to charge at all and with what, carry more weight than they do now.
The earliest stage of a criminal case is the one most open to influence. A suspect who is under investigation, released under investigation or on bail, and has not yet been charged, can put material and argument to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service before the charging decision is taken. Written pre-charge representations engage the two limbs of the Full Code Test directly: whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. Where the evidence does not support the most serious charge, they can also address which offence, if any, the evidence supports. We explain how that decision is made in our guide to how the CPS decides to charge.
The allocation hearing itself also deserves preparation it rarely gets. Representations on venue, made against the allocation guideline and an honest assessment of the likely sentence, decide where the case is tried now, and they would decide it alone if the Bill passes in its current form. In a joint case, the position of each person charged matters too, and our guide to joint enterprise explains how liability is attributed when more than one person is accused.
Where a charge has already been brought, the work does not stop. We put the same analysis to the prosecution and seek a review of the charging decision and, where the evidence does not support the charge, a discontinuance, rather than waiting for a trial in whichever court the case ends up in.
We act for individuals across England and Wales at every stage. Our work starts before charge, where the most can be shaped, and it continues after charge, where we press for a review of the charging decision and, where the evidence does not support it, a discontinuance. In a case where the venue may be in issue, that means three things. We address the charging decision while it is still open, including whether the evidence supports the offence the investigators have in mind. We prepare the allocation hearing as a contested hearing, not a formality, with a realistic view of the sentencing range under the relevant guideline. Where the defendant has a choice of venue, we advise on it properly, weighing the court, the timetable, the sentencing position and the cost, rather than leaving it to be made in the dock. For the many people we represent who are regulated professionals, the venue and the timetable also bear on their regulator, and we plan for both.
If you are under investigation for an offence that could be tried by a jury, or have been charged and the venue has not yet been decided, speak to us before the next decision is taken.
Trial by jury is the form of trial used in the Crown Court, in which twelve members of the public decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The judge decides questions of law and passes sentence; the jury decides the facts. There is no jury in the magistrates' court.
Twelve. A jury can continue with fewer if jurors are discharged during the trial, down to nine. A majority verdict needs at least 10 of 11 or 12, or 9 of 10.
Only for an either-way offence, and only under the current rules. If you indicate a not guilty plea and the magistrates decide your case is suitable for them, you can still elect trial in the Crown Court. For an indictable-only offence a jury is automatic; for a summary offence there is no jury. The Courts and Tribunals Bill would remove the right to elect.
Not a general one. In England and Wales, a defendant is tried by jury where the offence is indictable only, or where an either-way case is sent or elected to the Crown Court. The right to elect is given by statute, and the Courts and Tribunals Bill would remove it. The European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a fair trial, not a jury.
Jury service usually lasts ten working days, but a juror may be asked to stay longer if a trial overruns. For serious cases expected to last weeks or months, potential jurors are asked in advance whether they can serve for that period.
You can ask to defer jury service once, to a date within 12 months, or ask to be excused for a good reason, such as serious illness, caring responsibilities or having served in the previous two years. Excusal is at the discretion of the Jury Central Summoning Bureau.
It can. A criminal record including a sentence of five years or more, or a life or extended sentence, disqualifies a person for life; a custodial sentence, suspended sentence or community order within the last ten years disqualifies for ten years; and anyone on bail in criminal proceedings is disqualified while that continues.
Failing to reply to a jury summons, or to attend jury service without good reason, is an offence and can lead to a fine of up to £1,000.
An offence that can be tried in either the magistrates' court or the Crown Court, such as theft, fraud, assault occasioning actual bodily harm or sexual assault. The magistrates decide whether the case is suitable for them, and the defendant can currently elect a jury.
At least two hours, and longer if the court thinks the nature and complexity of the case require it. The judge decides when to give a majority direction.
Yes, though they are rare. A judge can try a case alone where there is a real and present danger of jury tampering, and some counts in very large multi-count cases can be tried by a judge where a jury tries sample counts. The Courts and Tribunals Bill would add judge-only trial for some complex fraud and financial cases.
For a single either-way offence, currently 12 months' imprisonment, and 6 months for a summary offence. The Bill would allow the limit for an either-way offence to be set at up to 24 months by regulations. Magistrates can also commit a case to the Crown Court for sentence after conviction.
It is not yet law, and most of its jury provisions would come into force on dates set by regulations. Until then, the current rules apply, including the right to elect. If you are under investigation now, the charging decision is the stage at which the most can be done, whatever happens to the Bill.
Lex Vindico Group is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We represent individuals nationally across England and Wales in criminal, regulatory, and parallel-proceedings defence at every stage: our work starts at the pre-charge stage and continues through charge, trial and appeal.
This article is written by Akram Mula, LLM, Solicitor Advocate and CPS-approved Prosecutor, founder of Lex Vindico Group. It is general legal information about trial by jury and the allocation of criminal cases in England and Wales, and about the Courts and Tribunals Bill as brought from the House of Commons in October 2026, not legal advice on any specific case. The Bill may be amended before it becomes law. For advice on your specific circumstances, contact our team directly.
Tell us what has happened and we will respond quickly and in confidence.
.svg)
We’re proud to be recognised by the UK’s leading legal and professional bodies. With decades of experience across criminal defence, regulatory law, and litigation, our clients trust our lawyers to deliver results with discretion, precision, and integrity.
Your next step could make all the difference. Speak to our expert legal team now and protect your future.